Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 4019216" data-attributes="member: 1645">Is D&amp;D realistic? No, of course not. Should D&amp;D try to be realistic? Probably not, but realistic does not mean complex, and it does not mean unheroic.This thread was not meant to be an argument for a more realistic D&amp;D but an exploration of what realistic combat might mean -- which, perhaps surprisingly, does not mean hyperlethality.A realistic-but-abstract system might have the following:
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">highly random damage effects, where a single attack might kill a hardy warrior, or a dozen wounds might not kill a frail scribe</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">low to-hit probability</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">lots of morale issues, which might contribute to the low to-hit probability</li>
</ul>Obviously any change to the combat system will ripple throughout the game, mechanically, but I think it can be fruitful to think through what the actual consequences of changing our assumptions might be.For instance, does it change the heroic nature of the game to replace hit points with hero points that get used up avoiding hits or downgrading hits from serious wounds to light wounds?&nbsp; Probably not.Does it change the heroic nature of the game to base these hero points on something other than toughness, as represented by Constitution, etc.?&nbsp; Probably not.Does it change the heroic nature of the game to have these hero points replenish through something other than healing?&nbsp; It changes the game, but not in a clearly bad way.At any rate, I'd rather explore the subject than say that any realism is bad and any unrealism is good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mmadsen, post: 4019216, member: 1645"] [i]Is D&D realistic?[/i] No, of course not. [i]Should D&D try to be realistic?[/i] Probably not, but realistic does not mean complex, and it does not mean unheroic. This thread was not meant to be an argument for a more realistic D&D but an exploration of what realistic combat might mean -- which, perhaps surprisingly, does not mean hyperlethality. A realistic-but-abstract system might have the following: [list][*]highly random damage effects, where a single attack might kill a hardy warrior, or a dozen wounds might not kill a frail scribe[*]low to-hit probability[*]lots of morale issues, which might contribute to the low to-hit probability[/list]Obviously any change to the combat system will ripple throughout the game, mechanically, but I think it can be fruitful to think through what the actual consequences of changing our assumptions might be. For instance, does it change the heroic nature of the game to replace hit points with hero points that get used up [i]avoiding[/i] hits or [i]downgrading[/i] hits from serious wounds to light wounds? Probably not. Does it change the heroic nature of the game to base these hero points on something other than toughness, as represented by Constitution, etc.? Probably not. Does it change the heroic nature of the game to have these hero points replenish through something other than healing? It changes the game, but not in a clearly bad way. At any rate, I'd rather explore the subject than say that any realism is bad and any unrealism is good. [/QUOTE]

Verification