D&D 5E People are Squishy (Abstract combat).

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Argyle King]

I understand this impulse, but I found a problem when my images of what "medieval armed combat" looked like got a complete shake-up a few years back. Basically, tactics that "make sense" is something I realised I really have little clue about; the old, movie-inspired visions of "how you fight with sword and shield" turned out to be utter bunk. Someone facing an actual skilled combatant using those methods would probably be dead in under six seconds.

The problem got worse when I realised that, even if I learned how real combat worked, the players would still find it a mismatch - I would be killing their character for stuff they thought "made sense" while the NPCs would be doing stuff they thought bizarre. So, I decided that a good, clear game system that everybody could read and understand was a reasonable substitute. If it was just abstract enough to let everyone "fill in the blanks" with stuff that, to them, "made sense", so much the better.

I don't need it to be perfect. I'd settle for vaguely reasonable. I completely admit that I'm not an expert on 'medieval armed combat.' I also admit that -even if I was- tactics change over time. I'm also aware that sometimes sacrifices in realism need to be made for the sake of playability, and I am perfectly ok with that.

That being said, there are tactics which D&D says are good tactics solely based on how the game works, and -in pretty much any realm outside of D&D (whether that be a real combat, an action movie, or even other rpgs)- those tactics would get you killed. Meanwhile, tactics which would normally be good in a different realm (whether that be a real combat, an action movie, or even other rpgs) are very often subpar due solely to how the game works. Even considering the fantasy elements and things I cannot possibly hope to quantify (such as magic,) many of them simply don't make sense if I give any more than a cursory thought toward them.

I'm not an expert at medieval combat, but I would say I do more than dabble in the knowledge of it, and I would dare to say I was at one time an expert in modern warfare. In my mind I have tactics, strategy, and concepts I would use in a battle if faced with one. The saying that a plan rarely survives first contact is true, but some plan is still better than no plan. In addition to having a background in warfare, I'm also a tabletop gamer. In my mind, I have tactics, strategies, and concepts I use when fighting orcs, dragons, and kobolds as well. I suppose it often seems odd to me that -when playing D&D- there's little to no overlap between those two sets of combat knowledge when playing the more modern iterations of D&D. Really though, it's beyond just having no overlap; what's most jarring is that great tactics from one are things that -the majority of the time- would get you killed when applied to the other.

It's more than just something I see from the player side of the table too. It's also not something which is isolated to the realm of combat. When GMing and trying to tell a story, I find that I need to bend my vision and my creativity to the will of the game's mechanical structure more than I'd like to. Some of the things which seem really cool in my head don't work as well after I need to mold them into something that fits into the game. I will openly admit that sometimes that was a result of me mistakenly believing an idea I had was better than it really was; however, I find that it is most commonly a result of the game world working vastly differently than the things I know. For a lack of better words, I had to learn a second set of reality before I was able to successfully run a game in today's D&D. (My experience with old editions is very limited, so that may have been true then too; I'm mostly comparing to other games.) I had to learn to build my story around what the game said was cool or what the game said would work, and I felt that too often trumped what I wanted my vision to be.

So, as I said, I'm not looking for a perfect model. Also, as said, I understand making sacrifices in the name of playability. Too, am I capable of understanding that rpgs are a group activity, and the game's vision should be a shared one; mine isn't the only right answer. Still, it would be nice if the game's vision was more similar to my own, and I didn't feel as though I had to forget so much of what I already know when playing. Both as a player and a GM, I find I have to turn parts of my brain off to be able to enjoy D&D. Either that, or I need to embrace that it's a game first and an immersive experience second. I can most certainly still have fun with the game, but -at the end of the day- I don't feel that the reasons I picked up tabletop gaming in the first place are always satisfied. Perhaps that's a failing on my part; all I can really say is that's just the way it is for me.

 

[Argyle King]

Further thoughts:

Everything I mentioned in my last post are things I can to -some extent- ignore as long as I feel that I am still able to play what I want to play and be able to have the type of experience that I want to have. The amount of fun I'm having increases my ability to ignore parts of a game I might find undesirable. To that end, I'm thankful to have friends who are pretty good GMs.

The problem is when -on top of what I mentioned in my last post- I find that I have a difficult time telling the stories I want to tell and/or engaging in the fantasy I want to indulge myself with. As I've grown older alongside D&D, I've found that (in my opinion) I have less ability to entertain some types of fantasy which are dear to me. Books, movies, video games; ones which were influences on me because I loved them fit very poorly into D&D. Looking back on it, they perhaps never really did fit well, but I feel as though they fit even more poorly now than they did before, and I'm not so sure that trend will not continue when I look at the future of the game.

For other people, the complete opposite is true. The game of today marries excellently to the influences they grew up with, and the influences they still have today. I think that is fantastic for them. I will never begrudge someone for having fun. Games are meant to be fun. What's fun for me might not be fun for somebody else. I understand and accept that. Still, it's strange to me that the most popular (or at least most financially successful) rpg has such a wide gulf between what I want, and what some other people want. I'd be willing to make sacrifices toward a middle ground; I do that all the time even among the circle of friends I most commonly game with.

I too often feel D&D is too heavily set on a course which is drifting more and more away from my desires; even in spite of currently having a claimed goal of reaching a middle ground. Truth be told, I'm perfectly fine with that. I have other games which I've come to know and love, and I've also gotten to a place where I can enjoy D&D (mostly because those other games satiate the desires I have which D&D cannot fulfill.) That being said; in a time when the game is moving forward, and amongst a conversation about the game, I feel it worth mentioning that I do not believe the company behind D&D understands why I like what I like or why I don't like what I don't like. I have no qualms about playing the game, but -if the intent is to get me to buy it; spend money on it- more effort needs to be made to understand those things. Realistically, I don't expect a large company to care about one person.

In the context of this thread, what I'm trying to get at is I can ignore things which bother me in one area of a game if a different area of a game is fun enough for me to do so. Currently, I find that I have to work hard to ignore how the mechanical parts of the game work. On the other side of the coin, I also find that I have a lot of difficulty engaging in the fantasy I want to engage in because it's a poor fit for the game. That's a double whammy. What I find ironic about it all is that the current fluff behind the game is some of my favorite; unfortunately, I find that D&D currently doesn't seem to tell its own story very well either. The relationship between the two parts of the game (fluff and crunch) don't (in my opinion) compliment each other well, and I see that being a trend which will continue in the future.

It will still sell; I have no doubts at all about that. Whether or not I'll be one of the people buying it remains to be seen. Stances currently being what they are, chances aren't looking so good. So, for now, I'm just a guy on Enworld trying to express why I like the things I do. Realism doesn't need to be lame. It doesn't need to be a binary thing either. There often seems to be an argument that I'm asking for some manner of perfect physics engine when I say that I want more realism in my fantasy. That's not what I want at all; I'd just prefer more of a nod toward plausibility than what I feel the game currently gives. I'd like to feel that the game is at least close enough in its vision to mine that I don't need to keep in mind a whole second set of reality when I engage the game world. Even if sacrifices are made and I'm compromising my vision, I'd at least like the lines to be blurred enough that I don't really notice the things that I notice now... or at least notice them less.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Better for what, though? It might be (arguably) more "realistic", for sure.... But "realistic" is not "best" for all cases. Hit points/AC/damage dice do fun, 'gamist' tactics and cinematic pacing really well. And they're simple.

<snip> Both changed later, because later warriors used their weapons in different ways (possibly pushed to do so by the increasing importance of mounted fighting and mounted fighters).

Better for gaming of course If individual weapons have different mechanical uses beyond +x to hit and xDx damage, you can have more variety in the characters without requiring bloat on the character generation side of things.
A simple example could be having 2-h weapons that cannot parry after an attack while a Sai or sword-catcher deals less damage but is better at parrying. Your characters choice of weapon changes how fights pan out. When preparing for an adventure your choice of equipment matters.
This also means you can pin variations on characters choices of weapons.


Your second comment about the change of weapon grips over time bring up another issue. DnD draws from real world history for arms and armor from around 1066 and 1600. 600 years of development all mashed onto one stage. If equipment were grouped into something like GURPS tech levels, you could build a world where different social groups are at different levels of advancement. This would open up plot hooks and make the world feel a bit more alive through details that tie into the ficiton.