Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5985961" data-attributes="member: 7635">The battle for the heart of D&D isn't what most people think. Basically, its a battle between two very diametrically opposed theories.D&D rules should be simple, abstract, and modifiable to suit the given situation.D&D rules should be complete, all-encompassing, and try to simulate reality. There is some slide scale and middle ground areas, but overall a rule is at its best when its simple enough to modify or complete enough to cover all bases. D&D has swung through the pendulum fairly wildly. Original and Basic very much fall in the simplistic model, while 3e (and 4e via powers) is very strongly in the latter group. AD&D fluxed wildly (and sometimes randomly) between both camps, being hopeless abstract in one place (1 minute rounds) and Concrete in the next (Weapon Speed). Almost every rule in D&D has been subject to the abstract/complete paradigm. Take Hit Points for example. The simplistic version of the rules assumes a pool of "hits" you can take before you die/drop. Its an abstract rule that covers lots of things, and doesn't do necessarily well. It doesn't take into account the nature or source of the damage, nor does it try to explain exactly how the damage happens. A more complete HP system would attempt to separate physical wound from luck/skill/grit, take into account specific injuries, and perhaps have rules for more damaging critical hits. These rules would solve a lot of arguments about the nature of HP, but at the cost of the simple "take 2 damage and go" nature of HP. D&D Next has promised some ability to slide scale the particular simplicity/complexity of the rules, but at the heart of the game some things can't be dialed around, and thus the decision must be made: do we as a community want a D&D that's simple, light, and abstract or one that's complete, heavier, and more iron-clad? When you boil it down, a lot of debates here and elsewhere boil down to this very battle.Again and again, this dance plays out. HP vs. specific wounds. AC vs. dodge/DR, roll-to-hit vs. combat maneuvers, rules for morale, different levels of surprise, concrete skills vs. ability checks, even things like monster roles and so on. Each time a rule is discussed, it almost always ends up becoming more complex, and hence more complete, to attempt to model all (or nearly) all situations where it may arise. In the end, is it better to have rules that are more complete-but-complex (3e) or simplistic-but-abstract (basic)?</blockquote>

Verification